Someone at some point styled themselves as a new E.E. Cummings, and somehow this became a style. The article features inconsistent capitalization for proper names alongside capitalized initialisms, proving there is some recognition of the utility of capitalization.
Ultimately, the author forces an unnecessary cognitive burden on the reader by removing a simple form of navigation; in that regard, it feels like a form of disrespect.
Arguably that’s the “operations” and “relationship” parts described here. But right now, many companies are choosing to not pay for software because they can build a solution themselves.
To use an analogy with some metaphors: The sensor is like a sealed room with a screen window that only lets in oxygen. To get a reading, every molecule that enters is smashed to create a tiny spark of electricity. However, because the oxygen is destroyed to create that spark, it creates a suction effect, causing more oxygen to rush into the room to fill the void. This creates a major flaw: if gunk builds up on the screen, it slows down the flow of incoming oxygen. The sensor, which only counts sparks per second, is tricked into thinking the oxygen level outside is low, when really the window is just dirty.
By adding a third electrode to replace the oxygen every time one is smashed, you maintain a perfect balance and eliminate that suction. Because the room stays full, the sensor no longer relies on the speed of the oxygen rushing in; it simply measures the steady state of the oxygen already there. Even if gunk gets on the window, the sensor won't be starved of a reading. It might take a few extra seconds for the levels to settle, but the final number will be 100% accurate because the sensor is no longer emptying its own room to get a count.
I still don't get it. The outside is dirty, right? He said in his post "You dip this probe into beer, sewage, or canned food a-stewing". So when you say "when really the window is just dirty" I don't get it - yes it will always be, because that's what it is placed in, no?
A dirty window only ruins the reading if you are measuring the speed of the oxygen passing through it. The three electrode design stopped measuring speed and started measuring balance. Unless the gunk is a total airtight seal (which is rare on the scale of an oxygen molecule), the sensor will eventually reach the right answer, whereas the old version would fail.
The permiability of the membrane would still be reduced by stuff on it, but as long as there is any permiability, the inner compartment will reach equilibrium eventually.
The big gain comes from a change in how you interpret the presence of electrons.
The older approach converted oxygen to electrical current, the magnitude of current flow relating to magnitude of oxygen depletion. The assumption built into that approach is that low oxygen depletion levels meant low oxygen levels, but that wasn't the only potential cause, because it ignored variation in the permiability of the membrane.
The newer approach equates current flow to oxygen concentration, as the system doesn't deplete the concentration any longer. The permiability of the membrane in this setup only contributes to a longer initial delay as the inner chamber comes to equilibrium with the surrounding concentration.
I think maybe one thing you have to consider is that sensors still require maintenance. Software can measure the length of time the sensor requires to reach equilibrium and send a maintenance required alert and someone cleans it (like if the software expects equilibrium in 10 seconds but the reading settles at 60 seconds, it can calculate the sensor is 80% clogged and requires cleaning). There's also all sorts of techniques that can be used to mitigate gunk depending on how the sensor is being used such as physical wipers, air-blast systems, ultrasonic cleaning systems, and chemical coatings. So as long as some oxygen can get in and an equilibrium is made between the fluid outside the sensor and inside the sensor, you'll get a reading that you can trust.
If Socratic philosophy is the greatest threat to state power, Stoicism is the framework for mass compliance. It's a psychological strategy for emotional management that replaces the traditional goals of inquiry. This system encourages individuals to obey authority and limit their emotional range to reach a state of internal comfort. This objective discourages the act of questioning. In this regard, it functions as an anti-philosophy.
The modern interest in Stoicism in my opinion is a move toward a secular version of the Christian experience. Modern Stoicism retains the Christian emphasis on submission and endurance while ignoring the superstitious elements inherent in Stoic physics, such as providential fatalism.
If your objective is to maintain a state of functioning passivity, Stoicism is the effective solution (but I wouldn't recommend it).
In some sense I agree, there is a level of defeatism in at least part of the wisdom of the stoics and very little questioning of authority. You do have the "If it's not right don't do it, if it's not true don't say it", and you are suppose to act on things if they are within your control. There's just no encouragement that you're more capable than you think or that you should do anything beyond "The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury." That doesn't really topple oppressive regimes.
It's a bit of a interesting take, you should act with virtue, but there is no encouragement to act against oppression and question authority. It seems very much like something to ignore and hope there's not a clash.
I don't think of stoicism as passive, though - it is just about responding rationally rather than irrationally, and one important aspect is focus on what can actually be modified, controlled or accomplished, not on fantasy. That idea seems crucial to modernity, where the main manner of control is to dangle outrage after outrage in front of everyone to keep them focused on spectacle and NOT focused on what they can actually, materially, physically do to change the world.
This seems like an Apple AI subscription under the guise of a software bundle.
It’s a good value for some, especially if you want to use FCP, but seems like a bad value for most users who are expecting more value from their Mac purchase.
I wonder if new Macs will offer a three-month trial for this suite, or if the standard apps will be pre-installed and the AI features are unlocked through a subscription.
If bundled versions of iWork go away, we may see a renaissance for G Suite.
Sounds plausible. Someone internally likely has AI sales numbers to meet, so creating new subscriptions and adding "AI" to them can help juice AI-related numbers toward that quota.
The Historical Popularity Index (HPI) and Wikipedia pageviews are incommensurable data points.
HPI measures the global archival presence of a figure, while pageviews measure current search frequency. These quantify different variables that lack a direct logical relationship.
I was at Apple during the Jobs era and you could really see the Zen influence in how he ran things and his approach. I was slightly interested in Buddhism at the time but the Apple experience pushed me to dig a bit deeper. After I quit, I went and studied at a Zen monastery afterwards to try to and sort out and make sense of all that I had seen when I was there.
Steve was deep into a specific lineage that went from Kodo Sawaki (the 'Homeless Kodo') to Kobun Chino Otogawa, who was Steve’s long-time mentor and even did his wedding. Sawaki was famous for being a total rebel; he had a column in the Asahi Shimbun in the late '60s filled with these blunt aphorisms that basically told people to stop being so full of themselves. You can definitely see that 'no-BS' attitude in Steve's approach. He also used meditation as a way to work through problems.
All of Microsoft’s products seem like they are all trying to be everything for everyone. Instead, people want more focus. The entire experience of Windows is a mess. How many terminals does an OS need? Or settings and control panels? Or all the legacy stuff? Just start from scratch and think simple, secure, and fast…. Otherwise you get trapped and bound to endless reasons for doing stuff and no focus and end up with Windows 11.
That would be great, but starting from scratch would take away Windows' core strength: backwards compatibility. There's a lot of legacy out there that depends on all that old cruft being there. There's still critical infrastructure running on Windows XP.
MS could probably just virtualize it or containerize the old parts, but people made a lot of dumb choices back then and windows software got its tendrils into every part of the OS and so weird things can break when you try and containerize it.
This new model is way too sensitive to the point of being insulting. The ‘guard rails’ on this thing are off the rails.
I gave it a thought experiment test and it deemed a single point to be empirically false and just unacceptable. And it was so against such an innocent idea that it was condescending and insulting. The responses were laughable.
It also went overboard editing something because it perceived what I wrote to be culturally insensitive ... it wasn’t and just happened to be negative in tone.
I took the same test to Grok and it did a decent job and also to Gemini which was actually the best out of the three. Gemini engaged charitably and asked relevant and very interesting questions.
I’m ready to move on from OpenAI. I’m definitely not interested in paying a heap of GPUs to insult me and judge me.
Ultimately, the author forces an unnecessary cognitive burden on the reader by removing a simple form of navigation; in that regard, it feels like a form of disrespect.
reply